|
Post by carolinegraves on Apr 23, 2011 13:20:37 GMT -6
I just sent the following letter to Wes William and to the POA Board of Directors questioning them on their fulfilling their fiduciary duty to the Property owners about the "Exclusive use" and other matters.
Dear Wes,
This is a follow up to your email, where you state that you have a fiduciary responsibility to all of the property owners. Since you are new to the Board, I want to share with you some of the past problems I have had with the Board so maybe you will get the true understand of what really is going on. I want you to understand before I begin, that Stan and I are totally two different individuals. Also, the following is my individual opinion and beliefs, and not any other persons or groups.
The DIPOA is a corporation and being a corporation, it has its own laws governing it. The Board of Directors has to follow these laws when making decisions about the Corporation. The Board has a fiduciary duty to the members of the POA regarding the Property owned by the Association. This duty is the highest standard of care at either equity or law. As you know that a fiduciary duty is a legal or ethical relationship of confidence or trust regarding the management of money or property between two or more parties.
I am an extreme believer of Property Rights and the laws that govern them. My father who defended Bear Bryant in his case against the Saturday Evening Post and my uncle who was an Alabama Supreme Court Justice instilled this belief in me. Because of my beliefs, I have tried in the past to inform the Board when I thought they did not understand what was actually taking place. In the past, I have repeatedly brought up the Constitution to the Board of Directors, when they have not been following its laws and when I feel was the Board is not fulfilling its fiduciary responsibility to its members.
The following are few examples of my interactions with the POA Board. 1. I was the one who found out that the Board of Directors gave away the 5th amendment property rights of 1600+ owners in the settlement of the Corps of Engineers lawsuit. Under the settlement, 1600+ owner’s property can be eroded away forever, and there is nothing that they can do about it. This includes my own property on the West end of the Island.
After finding this out, I was told by the class action attorney, Richard Davis, that the POA Past president Bill Harper asked that the lawsuit be settled for $1,500,000, so that he could add the money to the Town’s NOAA east end study of the Island. The original Corps’ lawsuit was filed for the West end of the Island eroding away. I was appalled to learn of POA Board justification of the settlement of the Corps lawsuit, when some of West end owner’s properties were underwater. The Board gave away their rights of ever recovering their property. As a matter of fact, most owners had no idea that the DIPOA board was giving away their rights because I feel the POA attorney and the Board of Directors did not disclose all of the details to them. As a matter of fact, the Newspaper printed the story about the settlement, before the Board of Directors told the owners about the settlement terms. Do you think the Board was fulfilling their fiduciary duty to the Property owners?
Has Bruce informed you that according to the State of Alabama CIAP Documents, Project #AL-28 “funding for $5,000,000 dollars, it states, “PARTNERING--- NOAA has provided funding for an engineering/design study. Further, there is potential for partnering with the Dauphin Island Property Owner’s Association via financial contributions from that organization.” Did you know that the POA was planning to give the settlement money from the Corps to Mobile County for that Beach? Is this the same POA money? If not where is the POA going to get this money? As a board member have you voted to give the Corps $1.5 million to partner with the Town for that project without understanding the full scope of your vote? Do you or anybody on the Board know the stipulation involved with the Corps Money? Is this the Boards fulfillment of its fiduciary duties?
2. Last year I found out that the DIPOA had not been following the Constitution as far as voting at the Annual meeting, which requires the voting to be by “person or proxy”. There is no such thing in the DIPOA constitution as the words, “Secret Ballots”. (And for your information, just because another Corporation votes by Secret Ballot that does not mean that is correct for the DIPOA.) Many weeks before that meeting, I contacted the DIPOA Board of Directors to inform them that they were not following the Constitution. They challenged me even to extent of what my definition of what a proxy was. When I asked what the board definition of a proxy was, I was informed that it was the Black Law Dictionary definition. Since I just happened to have a copy by me at the time, I asked what page they were on. Everything ceased at that time, I was totally ignored, and the voting was cast by Secret Ballot and not by proxy. Don’t you think that this was a blatant disregard of the Constitution Laws by the Board of Directors? Do you think the Board fulfilled its fiduciary duties to the members.
3. Last year at the very beginning of the annual meeting, I informed Bruce Jones and the Board that Frank Leatherbury was not a property owner. So under the DIPOA laws, he was not a member of the POA, hence could not be a member of the Board. Bruce Jones still insisted that Frank be allowed to resign from the Board. When I informed Bruce Jones that someone who is not a member of the POA couldn’t resign from that board, when they had never legally been on the Board in the first place. I was totally ignored again. Was the Board following its Laws and upholding their fiduciary duties to the members?
4. This year I have been questioning whether the Board is upholding their fiduciary responsibilities to the members by not disclosing to the members their involvement in the Town’s plans for Military Complex/AFRC on the POA Property and the Island, before the members were to vote for the Constitution changes. Do you really understand the repercussions that could results from the changes that are being made?
To give you an example, the removal of the “exclusive use” in the deed, will be opening all POA property to Public use. That not only means the Isle Dauphine Club, but the POA easements/pathways that are all over the Island. I don’t know where your property is located, but I saw on the map they are all over the island. They could be even behind the Mayor’s house. Those same POA easement/pathways are between the houses on the west end and the rest of the Island. Those are the same POA pathway/easements that the Town wants to open up to the public between the houses on the West end of the Island. You do know that the Sea Lab has done researched on prescriptive easements. Did the POA ask them to do this? What about the POA waterfront property and “the launching ramps for larger boats” that the POA is planning, will these will be open to public use, too. You might want to check to see if any are by your house. Also, you might want to check to see if the POA has any water rights around the island before giving away the Exclusive Use. Where are the future inventories of the “Working Waterfronts’” on the Island? I hope the Board doesn’t even consider trying to be selective about which easements will be opened for public use.
I personally do not know of a homeowners corporation that gives away their common land for public use, especially where this will subject the corporation to major liability on the Board’s part if someone is murdered or raped when “the public” is wandering between the Houses. Maybe someone needs to check to see what will be the liability involved by opening up all POA lands. I hope you will not be making this decision that could have adverse affect on the people on the Island without understanding all of the consequences involved.
Why does the POA want to give away land? Through out history wars have been fought to protect land. The most important question: Is this the beginning of the changes to the restrictions and the covenants on the Island so that there can be zoning changes to the whole island. Doesn’t the Town have to follow the zoning and building restriction and covenants of the DIPOA Deed? I think, this has been in the works since 2007, if not earlier and I think if you look in to this, you will find a lot more to this than just letting people play golf for a fee on the golf Course. Is the Board fulfilling its fiduciary duties to the members.
5. Has the DIPOA Board disclosed everything known about the AFRC and the plans for the POA Property to the property owners? If not, why not? I am wondering who is leading the Board to consider this project is something the owners want? I have heard Bruce’s Jones justification for it that more people will play golf. Does the Board feel that the people who own property on the Island do not have the intelligence or the common sense to understand what is happening or that something is being hidden from them? The people of the Island, that I have had the chance to meet, are some of the most perceptive and shrewd people I have ever known. The owners all have major investments in the Island, and the owners do not want the DIPOA Board to make decisions that will hurt our enjoyment of Dauphin Island nor the loss of value to their property.
6. Now back to voting for the annual meeting. I personally find it insulting, that after having to inform the Board that it is necessary to use proxies for the annual meeting, so that they can keep a documented record of the vote on Constitution issues of the Corporation: now the Board has sent out a proxy that says that three members of the Board will vote the proxy according to a secret ballot. And the Board is paying over $2000 for the counting of the unneeded Secret Ballots, instead just putting the Constitutional issues on the proxy. Isn’t this the same Board that said they didn’t have the money to even do a complete audit of its own financial records when the members were questioning large expenses? Would you perceive this to be the Board performing its fiduciary duties to the members?
7. Now to the request for the email lists to solicit proxies opposing the opinion of the Board. You might want to ask a friend of yours who is an attorney, how many cases have been fought in the courts over this same issue.
After you understand my background with the Board, do you think I have been intentionally attacking the Board for some unjust reason? Ask yourself what is the Board afraid of? If in my soliciting of proxies, my views are opposing views to the Board, don’t you feel that the owners have the right to read and learn all information before voting? Don’t you want the owners to hear all facts and to be as informed as possible in making these extremely important Constitutional changes/decisions about The PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION PROPERTY that will affect the whole Island? The buzzwords here are “PROPERTY OWNERS”.
Isn’t one of America’s greatest rights, freedom of speech? In a free society the greatest of freedom is the free exchange of thoughts and ideas.
Even the State of Alabama, Declaration of Rights, Article I, Section 35 states, "That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression.”
I hope you noticed in Alabama that the “Enjoyment of life” and the “Property” are very important protections.
Does the POA Board of Directors and the Town of Dauphin Island understand the term, the “Will of the People”?
I definitely respect your idea of staying positive, if I didn’t love the Island I would not fight this hard for it. I think you will find that the whole island will rally around the Board, if the Board tells the truth. I hope you will respect my feeling of the Board not being truthful and transparent about what they are doing. I hope each member of the board has considered the consequences of their actions on the decisions involving the common property.
If you have any more questions please don’t hesitate to write me.
Thank you for your time,
Caroline Graves
|
|
|
Post by carolinegraves on Apr 23, 2011 19:26:36 GMT -6
I have just gotten back from the Dauphin Island police department picking up the NEW WESTEND PARKING with all of the side streets listed. I am just amazed that now there are 14 new added streets to the Town's new public parking list.
I guess the Town must have forgotten that the Town does not own the Easements at the end of the Streets.
I hope all of you home owners feel relived that the POA architectural committee is studing the easements, while all of this is taking place.
I personally think the Town is going to put the military complex across the island and the Town wants the West side owners property and it looks like the POA is going to give it to them.
I GUESS THIS IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY FOR THE DEVELOPERS.
|
|
JBJ
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by JBJ on Apr 24, 2011 18:30:13 GMT -6
Sorry the use of the term "issue" in this context is confusing to you. I'm simply referring to a subject upon which there are different points of view which should and must be considered prior to reaching a resolution --or I 'll say --outcome. But as explained at the meeting, we just recently determined that the walkways are "dedicated" to the POA--and not the Town. But the question of how they should be used is what the architectural committee will consider. What points of view, other than the affected property owners' points of view "should be considered", and WHY, by the architectural committee of a board which PROPERTY OWNERS elected TO REPRESENT PROPERTY OWNERS? It seems simple and right to me that a property owner's association and it's board members should protect property owners interests---and I doubt that you will find many, if any, who desire that their POA easements be turned over to the non-property owning public, or to the town. So what gives ???? I don't understand why there IS any "issue"--it seems pretty simple and logical to me that the PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION should represent PROPERTY OWNERS, not the non-property owning public, or the town---am I missing something here ??? I'm just saying---- I think you may be missing something--that being other points of view. Here's one that is a case for accepting--even encouraging--the walkways to be used by all-- i.e., property owners, renters, and those using the public parking areas. After Katrina the POA board made the controversial decision to deed the west surf beach to the Town--the members voted in favor. This done not out of some socialist ideology but for a mundane , practical reason--we could receive no public funding for shoreline restoration as long as the shoreline were to be private. So we now have a public beach and it has to be public in fact--not just on paper. Hence the Town's efforts to provide more access by way of limited parking along some of the side streets. Property owners in the immediate vicinity are experiencing some real abuse--I get that, and think that the Town must do a better job of enforcing order, non-liter, proper parking etc. I agree that the POA should take a strong stand in insisting that this be done. But to take a position that the public--non property owners--should be denied access to the walkways that others--property owners and renters--are using just doesn't make sense. Can you picture this headline--" Dauphine Island POA after deeding the beach to the Town is now denying public access to the now 'public' beach" How would we explain that to Congressman Bonner. Sen Sessions, etc. So, perhaps the best approach is to embrace the fact that the beach is now public--and put our energy, focus, and common purpose behind an effort to insist that the Town enforce compliance with the rules of proper use--no litter, proper parking, no loud/rowdy behavior, etc. I think the POA would readily take on the task of lobbying the Town for this--we could set up a violation hot line, do some neighborhood watch type monitoring, etc. But to try to restrict access along the walkways would not be in our collective best interest.
|
|
|
Post by virginiashanahan on Apr 24, 2011 18:44:59 GMT -6
What points of view, other than the affected property owners' points of view "should be considered", and WHY, by the architectural committee of a board which PROPERTY OWNERS elected TO REPRESENT PROPERTY OWNERS? It seems simple and right to me that a property owner's association and it's board members should protect property owners interests---and I doubt that you will find many, if any, who desire that their POA easements be turned over to the non-property owning public, or to the town. So what gives ???? I don't understand why there IS any "issue"--it seems pretty simple and logical to me that the PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION should represent PROPERTY OWNERS, not the non-property owning public, or the town---am I missing something here ??? I'm just saying---- I think you may be missing something--that being other points of view. Here's one that is a case for accepting--even encouraging--the walkways to be used by all-- i.e., property owners, renters, and those using the public parking areas. After Katrina the POA board made the controversial decision to deed the west surf beach to the Town--the members voted in favor. This done not out of some socialist ideology but for a mundane , practical reason--we could receive no public funding for shoreline restoration as long as the shoreline were to be private. So we now have a public beach and it has to be public in fact--not just on paper. Hence the Town's efforts to provide more access by way of limited parking along some of the side streets. Property owners in the immediate vicinity are experiencing some real abuse--I get that, and think that the Town must do a better job of enforcing order, non-liter, proper parking etc. I agree that the POA should take a strong stand in insisting that this be done. But to take a position that the public--non property owners--should be denied access to the walkways that others--property owners and renters--are using just doesn't make sense. Can you picture this headline--" Dauphine Island POA after deeding the beach to the Town is now denying public access to the now 'public' beach" How would we explain that to Congressman Bonner. Sen Sessions, etc. So, perhaps the best approach is to embrace the fact that the beach is now public--and put our energy, focus, and common purpose behind an effort to insist that the Town enforce compliance with the rules of proper use--no litter, proper parking, no loud/rowdy behavior, etc. I think the POA would readily take on the task of lobbying the Town for this--we could set up a violation hot line, do some neighborhood watch type monitoring, etc. But to try to restrict access along the walkways would not be in our collective best interest. This may seem silly, but common sense would dictate these issues would have been addressed by the town and the POA prior to the transfer of this property. That being said, if these access points in any way crossover private property (and I am not saying they do. I don't know) then that private property owner should not be expected to give up their rights as property owners in order to bail out the town and the POA. To expect such is unacceptable, in my opinion. Nor should private property owners who bought their property under certain terms and conditions, with certain expectations, be expected to do the same. To expect such is unacceptable, in my opinion. The POA and the town failed those property owners either by incompetence or design. For the protection of these property owners the POA should be demanding the town immediately stop all access through these POA easements until such a time an agreeable resolution can be reached.
|
|
|
Post by virginiashanahan on Apr 24, 2011 20:06:24 GMT -6
Originally posted by JBJ ................snip for brevity........Can you picture this headline--" Dauphine Island POA after deeding the beach to the Town is now denying public access to the now 'public' beach" How would we explain that to Congressman Bonner. Sen Sessions, etc. .................. LOL News at 10:00 Lead Story Dauphin Island POA does not know what assets it own. and/or Town of Dauphin Island and POA lacked complete foresight in beach plans; now expects property owners to bail them out of their own mess And you are more concerned with Bonner and Sessions than the very property owners you were elected to represent? Really? These are the two arguments you want to make?
|
|
|
Post by anemone on Apr 24, 2011 21:29:07 GMT -6
Bruce, the public is NOT being denied access to the beach- there were 4 streets with public access already , and 3 very nice public beaches furnished them already. I mean-this is like the old saying- --"what do they want? An egg in their beer?" Again I would like to ask you, Bruce, you were elected by us [PROPERTY OWNERS] because of our trust in you as the best candidate to represent OUR --PROPERTY OWNERS---interests and rights-- NOT those of the non- property owning public, OR the town, so why are you aligning yourself with them, rather than with the folks whose interests you were trusted with and elected to represent and protect ?? It would seem now that that trust was msguided, and is even in the process of being betrayed---and I wish you would explain why--Sadly, Anemone
|
|
JBJ
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by JBJ on Apr 25, 2011 5:26:44 GMT -6
Bruce, the public is NOT being denied access to the beach- there were 4 streets with public access already , and 3 very nice public beaches furnished them already. I mean-this is like the old saying- --"what do they want? An egg in their beer?" Again I would like to ask you, Bruce, you were elected by us [PROPERTY OWNERS] because of our trust in you as the best candidate to represent OUR --PROPERTY OWNERS---interests and rights-- NOT those of the non- property owning public, OR the town, so why are you aligning yourself with them, rather than with the folks whose interests you were trusted with and elected to represent and protect ?? It would seem now that that trust was msguided, and is even in the process of being betrayed---and I wish you would explain why--Sadly, Anemone Let's be clear--all I have done thus far is opine that it is not in the best interest of the property owners to deny use of the walkways to those who are properly using the new Town parking areas. I did explain why--the why being our top priority of securing funding to restore our shoreline. I explained that in more detail in the earlier post. The POA has asked the architectural committee to look into the matter and make recommendations re. the use of the walkways. The board will then make a decision--I am just one vote. Your observation that the four streets that have always offered public access offer enough, is a fair point. I just think that the additional access helps our case re. being public, and only utilizes walkways that are already used by property owners and non-property owners ( renters). The real issue is the serious enforcement of the rules/laws/requirements around use of the beach by anyone--regardless of where they're allowed to park and whether or not they're a property owner. I do have the interests of the property owners first and foremost in mind--and have attempted to explain my reasoning here and in earlier posts. And just as was the case a few years back when the beach was deeded to the Town, there are differences of opinion re. how to achieve the best result. Let's continue debating.
|
|
|
Post by virginiashanahan on Apr 25, 2011 6:16:33 GMT -6
........ I did explain why--the why being our top priority of securing funding to restore our shoreline. I explained that in more detail in the earlier post. ............ Your observation that the four streets that have always offered public access offer enough, is a fair point. I just think that the additional access helps our case re. being public, and only utilizes walkways that are already used by property owners and non-property owners ( renters). Now you are contradicting yourself. In your earlier potential news headline you stated the POA did not grant access to the property given to the town in what was an admitted controversial decision. Now you are saying that there is in fact public access. You just think there should be more access granted at the expense of the property owners. You are not explaining why. Why? The access is there. Therefore the requirements to get that beach restored are there, and has been there this entire time. And despite all this there is no beach restoration taking place; only a further push to further erode property rights, and a push for the POA to give away even more property. No, this is not the real issue. The only way this is the real issue is if you have already decided to give away the POA easements. The real issue is that for whatever reason the POA and town are not happy with the actual access they do have, and therefore appear to be working together in an effort to force property owners to give up their individual rights to ownership, among other things. I must ask, which property owners would that be? Certainly not property owners on Dauphin Island. This is more than a difference of opinion, Bruce. I'm curious, when the POA chose to give this beach away in this controversial decision, obviously the POA, not knowing what assets it owns, did not give the easements. Did the Mayor, who is an employee of the POA, know that those easements belong to the POA? Did the Mayor/Director of Isle Dauphin know access was limited to 4 streets? If not, does the Mayor not know what property the town owns? If so, did the Mayor not bring this to the attention to the POA board and discuss these easements and beach access with the POA board at the time?
|
|
|
Post by virginiashanahan on Apr 25, 2011 7:36:19 GMT -6
Bruce, have you, as President of the POA, already granted permission to the town to utilize those easements? Has anyone else on the POA board or anyone working on the behalf of you or the board, granted permission to the town?
Or is the Town abusing its authority and confiscating the easements without proper authority and permission from the POA?
Exactly who plays what role here?
|
|
|
Post by Dennis Knizley on Apr 25, 2011 8:43:46 GMT -6
On the Dauphin Island Property Owners website, near the bottom under the caption "West Surf Beach", one can find a January 20, 2007 "West End Beach Update". It is described as a "message from your POA Board" authored by then President John Reed. It encouraged the membership to vote to give the West End POA Beach to the Town.
Some quotes follow:
What will change? Rights of way remain ours... The conveyance will not add to or change current beach access, already existing at four through streets, Raphael Semmes, Sehoy, St. Stephens and Sam Houston.
...share four access points...
Also on the POA site under "minutes and newsletters" one can find a August 18,2006 newsletter from then POA Board Chairman John Reed entitled "Save our Beach POA update". It also encourages property owners to vote to transfer west beach to the Town.
Quotes there are as follows:
... will establish beach access points on four through streets on the west end...
...Town will have the right and responsibility to control beach access points, an improvement over the present situation.
With Board recommendation, the property owners voted to transfer West End Property Owners Beach to the Town in March, 2007.
|
|
|
Post by virginiashanahan on Apr 25, 2011 9:11:22 GMT -6
LLL, thank you for that very useful information.
Bruce, certainly you had discussions with the Mayor about this. Are there minutes of those meetings available?
|
|
|
Post by anemone on Apr 25, 2011 10:18:04 GMT -6
On the Dauphin Island Property Owners website, near the bottom under the caption "West Surf Beach", one can find a January 20, 2007 "West End Beach Update". It is described as QUOTE: --"a "message from your POA Board" authored by then President John Reed. It encouraged the membership to vote to give the West End POA Beach to the Town.
Some quotes follow:
What will change? Rights of way remain ours... THE CONVEYANCE WILL NOT ADD TO OR CHANGE CURRENT BEACH ACCESS, already existing at four through streets, Raphael Semmes, Sehoy, St. Stephens and Sam Houston." End quote.
So--- WHO gave the town permission to allow persons using the parking spaces ,who are not property owners, to trespass on the POA easements and our property??? And why were the police advised not to ticket trespassers , to turn a blind eye? We the property owners are the taxpayers, and I would assume therefore the ones who furnish funds for the town employees paychecks, yet town employees are apparently being encouraged to sell us out in favor of non property owning outsiders ? I think this pussyfoting and "debating" around the issue should stop and we should be given some answers and that a stop should immediately be put to this illegal and unauthorized trespass on POA properties on the west end.
|
|
|
Post by anemone on Apr 25, 2011 10:56:33 GMT -6
Bruce--who are the members of the Architectural committee? Do they get to decide to give away our easement rights without a vote of the affected members? Shouldn't the affected west end property owners have a voice in this?
|
|
JBJ
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by JBJ on Apr 25, 2011 11:28:42 GMT -6
I think all of this is about to go away and the new parking spaces are to be permit only with permits issued to PO's and guests. The beach access will be only on the 4 existing "thru" streets. Still some issues with parking space layout, etc. but those will be addressed as well.
Should be decided at the next council meeting so be there if you can.
|
|
robin
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by robin on Apr 25, 2011 12:52:43 GMT -6
Bruce--who are the members of the Architectural committee? Do they get to decide to give away our easement rights without a vote of the affected members? Shouldn't the affected west end property owners have a voice in this? The POA Architectural Committee consists of myself (Robin Linn), Charles Gaba and Tom Howes. POA committees cannot make decisions on POA matters but rather only recommendations to the POA Board of Directors.
|
|
|
Post by carolinegraves on Apr 25, 2011 14:20:06 GMT -6
Bruce, Who did the the Town talk with the POA about putting up the signs up. Lets start naming names, OR did the Town do it by them selves? Does the Town or the POA even know what they own?
Bruce, please inform all of us what the POA owns. Maybe Robin Linn and Charles Gaba can tell everybody about the POA Property, since they are real estate Brokers with ACP on the Island and Charles Gaba even said that he is an appraiser.
|
|
glen
New Member
Posts: 26
|
Post by glen on Apr 25, 2011 20:56:24 GMT -6
I think all of this is about to go away and the new parking spaces are to be permit only with permits issued to PO's and guests. The beach access will be only on the 4 existing "thru" streets. Still some issues with parking space layout, etc. but those will be addressed as well. Should be decided at the next council meeting so be there if you can. Island Watch has been monitoring the exchange of postings on the West Surf Beach POA easement/public access issue. Since only around 100 property owners are currently registered on the POA Forum, Island Watch is composing an e-mail release to better inform all West End property owners on the status of this matter which is of grave importance to those owning property fronting the Gulf Beach. In the interest of presenting only factual information, I have several questions regarding your above posting from this morning. We would appreciate your efforts to answer the following questions: - Your post implies that you have been in recent discussions with Mayor Jeff Collier to resolve the POA easement/public access issue. Is that correct?
- Please identify the names of the side streets on which the "new spaces" are located that you are referring to when you state "...the new parking spaces are to be permit only with permits issued to PO's and guests." Will there be specific signs posted clearly stating that these parking spaces are to be used only by property owners and their quests and that the vehicles of violators will be towed at their expense?
- In your post you state that "...the beach access will be only on the 4 existing streets. Still some issues with parking space layout, etc. but those will be addressed as well." We assume that this refers to "public beach access". Is that correct? Also, please expand on what issues remain to be addressed in addition to "parking space layout"? How will those issues be resolved? Will neighboring West End property owners be provided an opportunity to input into the resolution of these issues? And, will the Town or the POA have the leadership role in the resolution of these issues?
- At the April 13th Board Meeting, you delegated the POA easement/public access issue to the POA Architectural Committee for study. Does your above post and the reference to the next Town Council Meeting supersede the need for that study? If not, what remains to be studied by the Architectural Committee since it appears the Town is about to resolve the issues and concerns of our West End property owners over this issue?
- At the April 13th Board Meeting, one Board member made the statement that the Town of Dauphin Island's police department is not "set up" to address the trespass problems that have been created to date. If that is correct, why is the Town's police hamstrung? Also, have you had recent discussions with Mayor Jeff Collier to address this issue to assure that the police department is prepared to respond quickly to trespass and related problems that could be created by the visiting public?
- Based on the controversy that has developed over this matter, it is clear that neither the POA or the Town thought through in full the consequences of the POA transferring ownership of the West Surf Beach property to the Town. What is lacking is an implementation plan to address all aspects of public use of this very narrow strip of beach (i.e., parking, trash collection, sanitation, security, time of day for use, etc.). It is very clear that such a plan is needed and that it should be developed with the full involvement of our West End property owners. Did your discussions with Mayor Jeff Collier address preparation of such a plan?
- Does the agenda for the Town Council meeting on May 3rd include the POA easement/publi access issue? If so, it would appear all West End property owners should be encouraged to attend to make their views, concerns, etc. known.
Thanks in advance for your assistance in answering these questions.
|
|
JBJ
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by JBJ on Apr 26, 2011 5:37:42 GMT -6
Glen,
I did talk to the Mayor and he indicated to me that this topic will be discussed and hopefully resolved at the next Council meeting. I'm not making commitments for him but he said he will recommend that the parking on the side streets ( the "new" areas in the S and T streets--as opposed to the "old/existing" areas of R Semmes, St Stephens, Sam Houston, and Sehoy) be limited to property owners and guests ( would include renters) and controlled by permit. Public parking or public beach access would not be allowed. I would assume/hope that proper signage would be installed.
Assuming this arrangement is approved and put in place, public access to the beach would be provided only at the four "thru" streets. Property owner and guest access would continue to be available by use of the walkways.
Re. the parking spaces--what I've heard is that the spaces are not clearly marked so as to indicate parallel vs. "pull in" so people do both and it's often in disarray. I'm sure part of the problem is that you can't paint lines on rock--but the problem will be dealt with I'm told.
I think the residents have had input--I've heard a number of them speak at the meetings, have rec'd emails, etc. But it would be a good time for anyone having suggestions to attend the council meeting and voice them.
Re. the architectural committee--there are still some details to resolve: the nature of the POA "ownership" is still fuzzy--the plat says we own the walkways but we don't have deed(s), and we haven't looked at the details of the subdivisions west of Sergrine--things like that.
I can't speak to the policing issue. We should expect rigorous enforcement of the laws and regulations. I would think a "neighborhood watch" type organization(s) might make sense. I think the POA could play a role in "lobbying" the Town when needed.
I agree that more needs to be done to make the transition to a real public beach. I'm aware that my views are not popular as you've seen when I've suggested that we need to be more public rather than less public if we want to optimize our efforts to receive public funding for shoreline restoration. I've suggested to the Town that they acquire property--maybe some of the compromised lots--and build restrooms and showers spaced out along the way, so that the public would have less temptation to trespass on private property. Those ideas --and my suggestions that we allow more public access using the walkways--have not been well received.
I think this gets most of your questions.
|
|
JBJ
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by JBJ on Apr 26, 2011 5:43:46 GMT -6
I was asked to identify the side streets where the "new" parking has been provided. I don't have a good list but there are about 12-13 of them in the S and T streets. Maybe someone can provide exact info.
|
|
glen
New Member
Posts: 26
|
Post by glen on Apr 26, 2011 9:23:05 GMT -6
Bruce:
This was helpful information. Thanks for the prompty reply.
|
|
|
Post by Dennis Knizley on Apr 26, 2011 12:19:21 GMT -6
I agree that more needs to be done to make the transition to a real public beach. I'm aware that my views are not popular as you've seen when I've suggested that we need to be more public rather than less public if we want to optimize our efforts to receive public funding for shoreline restoration. I've suggested to the Town that they acquire property--maybe some of the compromised lots--and build restrooms and showers spaced out along the way, so that the public would have less temptation to trespass on private property. Those ideas --and my suggestions that we allow more public access using the walkways--have not been well received. Bruce, As you are the only identifiable POA Board member target on this forum you are unfortunately the one being bombarded with complaints, accusations and more. You are handling it all very well. The more discussion here leads to more enlightenment of some of the POA leadership goals, and mechanisms being considered to accomplish them. The above quoted portion of your recent post is an example. A stated goal is to "make a transition to a real public beach". A mechanism is suggested that "...the Town...acquire property.. maybe compromised lots.. and build restrooms and showers.." That appears to be a direct deviation, like using the easements, from the concepts the 2007 Board promoted when encouraging the giveaway of the Beach to the Town. The January 20, 2007 West End Beach Resolution passed by the board and approved by the membership resolved that "...no construction of any improvements shall ever be allowed on West Surf Beach." Though not technically on the Beach , do we now encourage the Town to buy adjacent property and do just that, construct improvements? Did West end owners really contemplate public showers and restrooms next door? The resolution also says that " No commercial activity of any nature whatsoever shall ever be allowed at any time on West End Beach". The Town buys another lot, gets the zoning changed as commercial activity is consistent with "a real public beach", and then the jet ski rentals, coke stand and all the rest comes. Not a certainty, but we start down a slippery slope when construction of any sort is suggested on this beach. Many disagreed with the West Beach transfer. An unscientific poll on another island forum determined a majority of people later thought the transfer was a mistake. The same sentiment has been expressed here. Good or bad, the idea was to get the property into a public entity's ownership to get a government bailout for an engineered beach. So far, that hasn't worked. The BP windfall may save face for those still supportive of the giveaway and the money may come. Public access, but not a real public beach, was the concept sold to the POA membership. The Town may now have different plans. The fear of such was expressed by many back in 2007. Right now, however, the POA needs to discourage showers, baths, easement giveaways and whatever else may devalue further the properties on the West End.
|
|
will
New Member
Posts: 22
|
Post by will on Apr 26, 2011 15:34:07 GMT -6
Money has already come, Bonner and Shelby got us $1.9 M for engineering studies. If you had been at the meeting several weeks ago you would have heard from Dr Douglas and others what is being proposed from a engineering standpoint, how it will be funded, either from outside or inside sources and how funding for maintenance will be raised.
Beaches in Florida have small state operated parks every five miles or so that have parking for around 20+ cars, a nice bathroom with outdoor showers and all of this exists in the middle of rows of beach houses and condo's. It is a nice system.
|
|
|
Post by virginiashanahan on Apr 26, 2011 18:29:33 GMT -6
Money has already come, Bonner and Shelby got us $1.9 M for engineering studies. If you had been at the meeting several weeks ago you would have heard from Dr Douglas and others what is being proposed from a engineering standpoint, how it will be funded, either from outside or inside sources and how funding for maintenance will be raised. Beaches in Florida have small state operated parks every five miles or so that have parking for around 20+ cars, a nice bathroom with outdoor showers and all of this exists in the middle of rows of beach houses and condo's. It is a nice system. These "studies" seem to be an industry of their own. I wonder how many "studies" have been conducted by the town and the POA and how much money each have reaped from these "studies."
|
|
|
Post by Dennis Knizley on Apr 26, 2011 18:40:25 GMT -6
Money has already come, Bonner and Shelby got us $1.9 M for engineering studies. If you had been at the meeting several weeks ago you would have heard from Dr Douglas and others what is being proposed from a engineering standpoint, how it will be funded, either from outside or inside sources and how funding for maintenance will be raised. Beaches in Florida have small state operated parks every five miles or so that have parking for around 20+ cars, a nice bathroom with outdoor showers and all of this exists in the middle of rows of beach houses and condo's. It is a nice system. I try not to be abrasive or say things assuming facts when I am unsure of them or just have no idea whether they are correct just because I may disagree with the poster. I am aware $400,000 was procured for the East End study and $1.5 for the West End study. I attended the meeting at the Shelby building where Dr. Douglass made the three proposals ranging from the recommended one costing in the $70 million range, topping out at $72 million, designed for a life of ten years, to the least costly at a minimum $26 million, lasting five years. Maintenance, restoring and FEMA could lengthen the life. The initial building of the beach seemed to rely heavily of government funding, or maybe a "benefactor" as they described it, assumingly BP. Local government bonds and other taxpayer burdens were potential sources, but nothing was stated as beyond a discussion stage, or characterized as likely or probably, just possible. As to maintenance of the $26-$72 million beach, if built, a toll booth type "environmental fee" was discussed, being placed at the south end of the bridge. I know I left a lot about the meeting. The study money came about . But the "money" to build the beach was not suggested to be too much further along than the wishful thinking phase. As to small Florida public beaches existing every 5 miles or so among houses, I am not familiar with them. On the West End we have two large pubic parks four miles apart, and another a mile to the East. Maybe West End property owners want one or more 20 car public parks with facilities between these two large parks, and next door to their own home. A vote for removing the "member only" could be a move in that direction.
|
|
|
Post by carolinegraves on Apr 26, 2011 22:08:50 GMT -6
I sent this email to the Town of Dauphin yesterday
To the Town of Dauphin Island
Dear Mayor and Town Council Members,
The Town of Dauphin Island has placed public parking signs and parking spaces on the following 14 side streets, according to Dauphin Island Police Department side streets list includes the following streets
Vargas, Vaca, Tristan, Treasure, Tovar, Tonty, Tecumseh, Taos, Tapioca, Surf, Strand, Slidell, Shell.
According to the Dauphin Island map there are no public access from those Streets to the Beach.
Who gave the Town access across private property for the PUBLIC to use?
Vargas, Vaca, Tristan, Treasure, Tovar, Tonty, Seneca do not have any access to the Beach at all.
Tecumseh, Taos, Tapioca, Surf, Strand, Slidell, Shell, have only POA easements, which are for the property owner’s use only.
The Town of Dauphin Island immediately needs to remove the public parking signs for the use of crossing the private property and POA easements, and stop all trespassing on private property and all non-members cars should be towed at owner’s expense.
Are you were aware that the property at the end of the streets is privately owned and that those other properties have easements between them that belonged to the POA. Do you know what properties the town owns. Why did you knowingly and willingly violate the law to have the public trespass on private property? Who specifically issued the order for the town to put up those Public Parking Signs, when, and how?
I am requesting a written copy from you of the order from the Town for those signs. If the town council voted to put those signs up, how did the individual town member vote?
Now that you are aware this is not Town property, what steps will you immediately be taking to remove those signs and enforce towing and respect the boundaries of the private property owners and of POA property?
I will be informing all owners to keep a record by video, pictures or notes with dates on them, and I will advise all other owners on the Island to do the same.
I will be informing all property owners to document, any negative comments that could have a material effect on their property as results of the POA and the Town doing this.
Sincerely,
Caroline Graves
|
|
|
Post by carolinegraves on Apr 26, 2011 23:05:01 GMT -6
Do we really want to remove the “Members only” from the Exclusive use on the Deed???
So while everybody is debating what else is happening on Dauphin Island, and what the Town is up to, I will tell you the next story.
I had to physically stop 4 different 4 wheelers that were going in front of my house on the Beach today. I had a camera with a video and sound; I had to tell them that they were trespassing on private property. When I asked why they were going this route, they told me that the Town told the B P crew that when going to Sand Island to clean it for oil that they could only go out by Raphael Semmes and could only come back by St Stevens. When I ask them who told them to do that, they said that the Mayor, himself, told them that they had to go that route.
Well, I caught on, real quick that the 8 to 10 four wheelers with the toilets behind them were Crowder Gulf and the Swift that were hired by BP, were going up and down on the Berm that was put in front on my house and the other house in this area and breaking down the tiny bern that was protecting our houses from the oil. (of course we all ready had oil all over our property with the oil spill last summer). Somebody did sent a person that was the head of the BP crew on the whole Island to talk to me, and they finally got the Mayor to let the crew go back from their clean up on Sand Island by the way of Raphael Semmes.
I sure hope the Mayor does want our house to fall into the Ocean!!!!! Oh Dear, didn’t he say that exact same thing the other night at the POA meeting about our house and the Ocean?
Please!!! Somebody tell the Town not to punish us any more, for telling the truth.
BECAUSE THE TRUTH WILL SET THE TOWN-------??
|
|
|
Post by virginiashanahan on Apr 27, 2011 5:15:57 GMT -6
Do we really want to remove the “Members only” from the Exclusive use on the Deed??? So while everybody is debating what else is happening on Dauphin Island, and what the Town is up to, I will tell you the next story. I had to physically stop 4 different 4 wheelers that were going in front of my house on the Beach today. I had a camera with a video and sound; I had to tell them that they were trespassing on private property. When I asked why they were going this route, they told me that the Town told the B P crew that when going to Sand Island to clean it for oil that they could only go out by Raphael Semmes and could only come back by St Stevens. When I ask them who told them to do that, they said that the Mayor, himself, told them that they had to go that route. Well, I caught on, real quick that the 8 to 10 four wheelers with the toilets behind them were Crowder Gulf and the Swift that were hired by BP, were going up and down on the Berm that was put in front on my house and the other house in this area and breaking down the tiny bern that was protecting our houses from the oil. (of course we all ready had oil all over our property with the oil spill last summer). Somebody did sent a person that was the head of the BP crew on the whole Island to talk to me, and they finally got the Mayor to let the crew go back from their clean up on Sand Island by the way of Raphael Semmes. I sure hope the Mayor does want our house to fall into the Ocean!!!!! Oh Dear, didn’t he say that exact same thing the other night at the POA meeting about our house and the Ocean? Please!!! Somebody tell the Town not to punish us any more, for telling the truth. BECAUSE THE TRUTH WILL SET THE TOWN-------?? Well now, that certainly is a piece of interesting information. You may want to start a new thread with this (and your letter to the town) so it does not get lost in the mix.
|
|
|
Post by virginiashanahan on Apr 27, 2011 5:17:53 GMT -6
I sent this email to the Town of Dauphin yesterday To the Town of Dauphin Island Dear Mayor and Town Council Members, The Town of Dauphin Island has placed public parking signs and parking spaces on the following 14 side streets, according to Dauphin Island Police Department side streets list includes the following streets Vargas, Vaca, Tristan, Treasure, Tovar, Tonty, Tecumseh, Taos, Tapioca, Surf, Strand, Slidell, Shell. According to the Dauphin Island map there are no public access from those Streets to the Beach. Who gave the Town access across private property for the PUBLIC to use? Vargas, Vaca, Tristan, Treasure, Tovar, Tonty, Seneca do not have any access to the Beach at all.Tecumseh, Taos, Tapioca, Surf, Strand, Slidell, Shell, have only POA easements, which are for the property owner’s use only. The Town of Dauphin Island immediately needs to remove the public parking signs for the use of crossing the private property and POA easements, and stop all trespassing on private property and all non-members cars should be towed at owner’s expense. Are you were aware that the property at the end of the streets is privately owned and that those other properties have easements between them that belonged to the POA. Do you know what properties the town owns. Why did you knowingly and willingly violate the law to have the public trespass on private property? Who specifically issued the order for the town to put up those Public Parking Signs, when, and how? I am requesting a written copy from you of the order from the Town for those signs. If the town council voted to put those signs up, how did the individual town member vote? Now that you are aware this is not Town property, what steps will you immediately be taking to remove those signs and enforce towing and respect the boundaries of the private property owners and of POA property? I will be informing all owners to keep a record by video, pictures or notes with dates on them, and I will advise all other owners on the Island to do the same. I will be informing all property owners to document, any negative comments that could have a material effect on their property as results of the POA and the Town doing this. Sincerely, Caroline Graves These are some excellent questions. I wonder if the Mayor is a member of this board and whether or not he ever posts. I would love to read his response to this.
|
|
|
Post by anemone on Apr 27, 2011 6:54:06 GMT -6
It would appear to me that the mayor IS well aware of this board and our property owners concerns, and I applaud him for his apparent decision to try and help get the current deplorable situation on the west end rectified---[as Bruce said in his post about what the mayor is going to suggest to the council at the next meeting.]
|
|
|
Post by ambergreen on Apr 27, 2011 21:45:06 GMT -6
Can you picture this headline--" Dauphine Island POA after deeding the beach to the Town is now denying public access to the now 'public' beach" How would we explain that to Congressman Bonner. Sen Sessions, etc. So, perhaps the best approach is to embrace the fact that the beach is now public-- Since much of the now-public West Surf Beach is also now underwater, the Town is providing more access not to public beach but to private lots which no longer have houses on them. What happens if someone gets hurt on those private lots? Is the private property owner liable? Or the Town? Will some property owners sue the Town for encouraging trespassing on their lots? In places where private lots stretch into the water, only the sand up to the mean high tide line is now public. Nothing north of that. So in most cases, the visiting public are laying down towels on DIPOA members' private property. See the attached file which shows a satellite photo with lot line overlays. Attachments:
|
|